|
|
Many
people who read the Ra
Material
complain that they are irritated by the strange syntactical
constructions and unusual word use. There seem to be "extra"
and redundant words; there are confusing definitions, and
so forth. This is NOT the same thing as occurs in other
channelled material where there are endless ramblings that
go on and on and on consisting of nice, pleasant sounding
words that say, in effect, nothing of significant value.
People send me REAMS of this stuff. They will find a new
website that posts such "wonderful channelled messages"
from Swami Beyonda or Coot Whosits or whoever, and they
will download entire files and then send them to me to discover
if I am "aware" of this great information and
will I please read it and offer up an opinion; or surely
I should "join forces" with these people because,
clearly, we are all saying the same thing!
So,
I open the files and begin to read what different people
send me.
Now
let me say up front here that I am NOT perfect in terms
of grammar, word selection, punctuation, or even spelling.
I'm pretty good, but there are many people who are EXCRUCIATINGLY
correct! I'm not one of them. But, I DO have a great love
and respect for language and its ability to communicate
marvelous ideas so that people can be more intimately connected
in THIS density which is, I think, one of the lessons before
us and a major POINT of being in this density. I also really
detest misuse of the language that results from carelessness
and lack of concern for the spirit of communication. Furthermore,
I can say that one thing I DO know is the difference between
subject and verb and how to diagram a sentence. (Thank YOU
Miss Thompson and Mrs. McCurdy for making me do it
in 9th and 10th grades!) So, one of the first things I do
when I start reading these "great" channelled
exposes, is to take some sentences at random and diagram
them to determine what they are REALLY saying. I was amazed
to discover, over and over again, such great contradictions
and misuse of terms that, in effect, most of these passages
consist of what is politely termed "word salad."
We jokingly refer to it as "salad shooter channelling."
In
a recent example, the material contained the following remark:
Our karmic purification is speeding up as the positrons
that we hold in our bodies release and collide with their
corresponding electron twins.
Having
a husband who is a physicist is very helpful in sorting
out a lot of this mish-mash. Ark wrote to the person who
was wanting to know about this material as folllows:
I
was reading this Nibiru stuff with some amusement. I am
open towards unconventional thinking but sometimes it
is just funny. Positrons are antiparticles and they annihilate
rather soon. So there is no way there can be any positrons
in human bodies, unless they are constantly created by
highly energetic processes!
For
instance: several positrons have certainly been created
in me today because I was in the lab and pretty close
to a high energy neutron source. Some of these neutrons
went into my body and have been captured by Carbon, Hydrogen,
Oxygen and whatever. Then my atoms created energetic photons;
then these photons created pairs: positron-electron, and
then these positrons annihilated again. But once I was
out of the lab, there were no more positrons in me.
Making
a universal Galactic story out of the positrons is just
disinformation. It disinforms all who are not physicists.
And it is a typical disinformation pattern: truth between
lies, lies between truths. It is true that that electron-positron
pairs annihilate, emitting photons (sometimes two, sometimes
three). It is a lie that positrons (in any significant number)
are in our bodies (except temporarily for those people who
are exposed to energetic radiation as I was in the lab today).
Thus all the justifications of the "photon belt" are disinformation
and traps.
But
then, we again return to the problem of assessing different
material. At one point we really wanted to nail this problem
down. Ark decided to "interrogate" the Cassiopaeans
about it.
12-31-97
Q:
Now, at some point you said when we asked about the Ra
Material, you gave the number that it was 63 per cent
accurate. Do you confirm this now?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, I want to know exactly how you got this number
63, how you computed it, why is it 63 and not 62 or 64?
A: The divination process always breaks down to mathematical
processes, as this is the only true universal language.
Q: But, I want to know what mathematical process you were
using to get this number 63?!
A: Add the total number of words published, divide the
sum total into the number reflecting accurate conceptualizations.
[note: the original transcript reads "divide by"
rather than "divide into", which serves pretty
well as an example of possible distortion due to non-universality
of meanings.]
Q: Okay, if we have 100 words, and 25 are used in the
description of a concept that is accurate, is that what
you mean?
A: Close.
Q: (A) How do you determine if a given word is accurate?
A: By the verity of the issuer.
Q: So, words, even though words can mean different things,
the verity of the speaker can give...
A: Yes, because if monitored in a state of pure non-prejudice,
the accuracy level will be perceived correctly.
Q: (A) Okay, I want to read a sentence: 'The first, the
Great Pyramid was formed approximately 6,000 of your years
ago.' I want to go through this word by word. The word
'the,' accurate or inaccurate?
A: Accurate.
Q: 'First.'
A: Inaccurate.
Q: 'The.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Great.'
A: Accurate, in this case because of conventional agreement.
Q: Now, you describe a word as neutral, but in the mathematical
algorithm you gave for computing the numbers, you didn't
mention neutral words, so, what do you do with neutral
words?
A: They belong to the 37 percent as they cannot be counted
subjectively as accurate.
Q: 'was'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'formed'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'approximately'
A: Accurate.
Q: 6,000
A: Accurate.
Q: 'Of.'
A: Neuter.
Q: 'Your.'
A: Accurate.
Q: 'years.
A: Accurate.
Q: Okay, if we apply the same formula to the C's, your
material, what percentage would you give?
A: Not up to us to measure.
Q: Okay, you gave, concerning the pyramid the following
sentence: 'The Great Pyramid was built 10,643 years ago.'
Is it accurate? (L) Yes, I think there is a problem. You
confirmed the Ra material on a point that contradicts
what you gave yourselves!
A: Problem is not with "us," problem is trying to compare
to different frames of reference. Look for clues in terms
of definition.
Q: I don't understand what you are saying. Either it was
built 10,643 years ago or it was built 6,000 years ago.
A: Formed/built... you think it means the same thing,
eh???
Q: It was built before it was formed? (A) According to
this Ra material, was never built at all, it was formed
by thoughts...
A: If your house at ____ Montana Avenue is remodeled,
then it takes a new form. Now, reread sentences in question
carefully.
Q: 'The first, the Great Pyramid, was formed approximately
6,000 of your years ago. Then, in sequence, after this
performing by thought of the building or architecture
of the great pyramid, using the more local or earthly
material rather than thought form material to build other
pyramidal structures.' Now, C's say: 'The Great Pyramid
was built by Atlantean descendants 10,643 years ago.'
A: No, Laura, no no no no !!!!! If your house is remodeled
in 1998, is that when it was built?
Q: No, that is not when it was built. Okay, I get your
point. Subtle clues have to be discerned. Can we use this
process to analyze all the material?
A: You can, but senior citizenhood awaits its completion.
Q: Is there some issue about asking this question of accuracay
that needs to be addressed? One main thing we note is:
Some sessions were more accurate than others depending
upon who was present...
A: You got it!!!
Q: Therefore, it would be difficult to assess an accuracy
rating for the C's themselves...
A: Bingo!
Q: But, we CAN assess the material itself up to the present,
keeping in mind that some parts can be more accurate than
others...
A: 71.7.
Q: Okay, that takes into account corruption from different
people, long passages of comment from the participants,
typos, reconstruction, and so forth. And, the same applies
to the Ra Material... (A) Okay, suppose I have a sentence
that "the Great Pyramid was built 10,000 years ago,"
but really it was built yesterday, and you would give
70 per cent accuracy to this statement?
A: No.
Q: But only one word is inaccurate... (L) No, only four
words are accurate. If you have "The Great Pyramid
was built 10,000 years ago," you have eight words.
Of those eight words, the only ones you can consider to
be accurate are "Great Pyramid was built." The
word "the" is neuter, and "10,000 years
ago" is inaccurate, so you divide the four words
into the total and you have an accuracy rating of 2 percent.
I think that, in the case of the problem you propose,
it says it pretty well!
A: You are searching for a concrete formula within a vacuum
of abstraction. The only way to get an accurate measurement
is to wait until you can include the sum total of all
the words, then determine accuracy as a percentage of
the total. With the total of all words, and each individual
word as the unit of measurement.
The
bottom line of all this discussion here is, again, the usefulness
of the Ra Material as not only a "primer" for
the Cassiopaean discussions, but also to suggest the idea
that it is about the only other material available that
can be compared, related, and used as a standard. Yes, we
have discussed the "filtering" and the judgments
of that group, and we have discussed a process by which
percentages of accuracy can be divined, and The
Law of One still holds a very high place
as one of the first, if not THE first, Sixth Density Communication
into our realm that was maintained over a consistent period
of time. For the Ra Material to have a 63 percent accuracy
rating, as you can figure out from the above process, is
a pretty remarkable achievement! So, don't sell it short
because of the unusual verbiage... apparently there was
a reason for it. It is my opinion that Ra spoke as he
did because it was necessary in order to get the information
through the various biases of the channel. Otherwise,
I cannot justify why a Sixth Density being would not be
able, considering their "lofty attainments," to
communicate in terms that are more generally comfortable
to the Third Density mind. As I said before, if you are
in 6th grade, it shouldn't be too hard to go back and do
3rd grade stuff. It may take a little "adjustment period,"
but it can be done. Yes, in the beginning of the Cassiopaean
contact, there were some rather "archaic" and
"stiff" sentences - but as time passed and the
channel "grooved," the communication became more
"natural," and even gently humorous. I asked the
Cassiopaeans about this:
11-11-95
Q: (L) I noticed that in the beginning of these transmission
that the language was very formalized, and that as time
has gone by, the language used has become more colloquial.
Why is this?
A: Formalized? Colloquial? Define your judgements, please!
Q: (L) Well, what I meant was, that in the beginning it
seemed that certain colloquial expressions that we are accustomed
to were unclear to you. And now, not only is there great
familiarity with our expressions, but you seem to often
come up with rather clever and original witty sayings.
A: Familiarity breeds contentment!
Q: (L) Okay. I want to get on with the questions for tonight...
A: Do you not wish to reflect upon our witticism?
Q: (L) [Laughter] Yes! I thought that was a very clever
witticism!
A: It seemed as if you were not impressed?!? Give us a break,
Laura?!? We're only sixth density!
We
have also discussed our own material and its flaws and shortcomings,
and even with awareness and constant monitoring, we are
only making a little over 71 percent - at least that was
the figure at the time. I am certainly working on ways of
improving and purifying the material all the time. In regard
to this, the Cassiopaeans have many times commented on the
need to actively learn and acquire knowledge. The effort
put forth in this respect is sort of equivalent to "exercising"
your soul/mind muscle. The more you exercise it, the stronger
it gets:
Subtle
answers that require effort to dissect promote intensified
learning. Learning is an exploration followed by the
affirmation of knowing through discovery. Learning
is necessary for progress of soul... this is how you are
building your power center... Patience serves the
questor of hidden knowledge... Search your "files." ...Learning
is sometimes best accomplished by study and exploration...
There are other clues that you can discover by your own
study... [Cassiopaeans]
This
is why the many sources that drone on and on in such extraordinary
detail, even if SOME of what they are saying is truth, can
be doing a great disservice to their "devotees"
due to the fact that they are not encouraging them to think
for themselves. Many of them say such things as:
"The
words that we choose and the concepts of which
we speak are triggers for codes that are stored
deep inside of your bodies. Your bodies are waiting
for the questions to be posed so that you
can begin to resonate with the answers inside of
yourselves - so that the cellular memories within
your bodies can begin to remember what they already know.
As we speak to you, you will remember."[Marciniak]
Now,
what's wrong with the above statement taken from Barbara
Marciniak's Bringers
of the Dawn? I have analyzed it and placed in
bold type the words that throw the "accuracy rating"
off (including neutral words). There are 71 words in this
statement, and these fourteen words, used in the above described
accuracy formula result in the following:
71-14=57
57/71=80 % accuracy.
Eighty
percent accuracy is not bad.
The
word "trigger" implies something that will set
off an action or reaction and it is related in the next
sentence to "questions." The statement is that
information is "stored inside us," and that is,
of course, as far as I can tell, completely accurate. The
problem here is the mode of access. The above statement
would have us believe that all we have to do is "ask
the questions" and the answers will just "flow."
Well, it is certainly true that "answers will flow,"
because they do that with many channels all the time and
have been doing so for millennia as far as I can determine.
It is the VERITY of the issuer that we are concerned with.
How do we find the key to understand this?
At
the end of the statement, there is the statement "As
we speak to you, you will remember." This suggests
that all one has to do is "listen" or "read"
specially encoded "word streams" and one will
then have the whole of Creation opened up before their eyes.
In a certain sense, that almost smacks of hypnotism being
used to ensure passive reception. Or - mind programming.
Certainly not something of Free Will.
Remember
what the Cassiopaeans said:
Subtle
answers that require effort to dissect promote
intensified learning. Learning is an exploration followed
by the affirmation of knowing through discovery. Learning
is necessary for progress of soul... this is how you are
building your power center... Patience serves the questor
of hidden knowledge... Search your "files." ...Learning
is sometimes best accomplished by study and exploration...
There are other clues that you can discover by your own
study...
So,
what's the difference, other than the obvious? Some people
would say that they "learn differently..." that
it is "right" for them to learn by simply "receiving"
the "inflow" of information, and because they
"receive" it in this way, that makes it "right."
Well, I am not going to say that this is not possible, for
sure! My experience has been that there ARE people who have
"done the work" in many lifetimes prior to this
one, and at some "magical moment," they hear something
or see something, or something happens and the key gets
turned and it all opens up! This is why the Sufi masters
talk about some seekers who can begin the "process"
and rapidly achieve "enlightenment," and others
can "stand at the door and knock" their entire
lives and it is never opened to them. On the surface it
seems unfair, but behind it is a reality of long and diligent
labor on the part of the soul who "achieves" so
quickly. I guess you could apply the same principle to persons
who demonstrate great artistic talent - they didn't just
"get it" without a reason... it was the result
of possibly many lifetimes of work as an artist before the
present one. So, it CAN and DOES happen!
But,
we still have to be concerned about this because, in some
cases it can be true, and in others it may not be true!
My experience has been that this can be used as a "stumbling
block," and very often the concept is utilized to assure
the recipient that the channelled information is "true"
or STO, simply by virtue of the fact that it is channelled,
when, in fact, it is not true. In the end, the only way
to "validate" any information is by WORK - reading,
studying, research - exercising the gray matter!
As
I write this, I have received another e-mail from a reader
asking about still another source of channelled teachings.
He writes that this information
...can be difficult to understand because it is written
in such a way as to be accessed through the emotional
body and if you aren't in touch with that you won't get
it.
That,
right there, sets off warning bells in my head. Information
that requires "emotion" to understand is, of necessity,
distorted. As I have already mentioned, any woman of childbearing
age will tell you that emotions are chemical and very definitely
"color" how you think. A very "neutral"
personality trait that could be described as "slowness
to act," can be seen as either commendable caution
or cowardice depending on which hormone is in the upper
ranges of distribution in the female body at the moment.
A mild joke can be funny or tragic depending on what day
of the month it is!
So,
if "emotion" is what is necessary to understand
the referenced work, I don't think it has much objective
validity. The Cassiopaeans have made many comments about
emotion, but the following one is, I believe, most appropriate
in regard to the idea that emotion is necessary to learn
truth:
11-21-98
Q:
The question is: in reality, what is it that really exists?
What are things that really exist?
A: Gravity is the key. Now, plug in your wave functions.
Q: (L) How can you describe gravity mathematically?
A: Must be possible! Review texts re: gravity.
Q: (L) We did... and either we are so dense, or we can't
get it...
A: Not dense, emotionally clouded. When one is in
a defensive mode, all is "skewed," including this conduit.
Reveiw texts and meditate to clear consciousness of emotional
poison!
The
correspondent further writes:
Apparently
one of the agenda's the ET's have is to recover and re-integrate
[themselves] with their wills that they denied and separated
from long long ago.
So,
we begin to understand the motivation... it is an apologia
for the nasty critters invading our world and an attempt
to garner sympathy for them. This is further amplified with:
One
of the books in the series is about original cause which
was the trauma experienced when God split into male and
female and that the trauma from then is still affecting
us now. A point made is that we can not get to that trauma
with our minds alone because Mind did not exist then and
as far as our minds are concerned this trauma never happened
and doesn't exist!
Well,
that was a curious statement and I decided to go to the
website in question and see if I couldn't get a bit of clarification
on that idea. I won't describe the gory details of the "story
of creation" presented there, I will only say that
the upshot is that, once again, our reality is being described
as the result of an "error" or "mistake;"
something that has to be "fixed," and, again,
it is basically attributed to the "female." And,
of course, this source is going to teach everybody to channel
so they can "fix things!" This is really just
a variation on what David Icke writes:
11-21-98
Q:
David Icke says: "The imbalanced consciousness that I
will call Lucifer is not an essential part of the positive/negative
balance. He is a disrupting, disharmonious aspect of consciousness,
which is not necessary for human evolution. More than
that, Lucifer's efforts to close off the channels that
link humanity to its higher understanding have blocked,
not advanced, our evolution." Is this a correct assessment
of this Luciferian Consciousness, that it is not part
of the positive/negative balance of the universe, and
that it has blocked our evolution?
A: No. It is part of the lesson plan.
Q: That was my thought as well, but he says that because
of this problem with the Luciferian consciousness, the
"higher levels of creation began to intervene because
Lucifer was imposing its misunderstandings on others and
breaking the universal law of free will. Is this true?
A: No.
[05-04-96
A: Do you, in general, control 2nd density beings on earth?
Q: (L) Yes.
A: So, what is "fair" about that?
Q: (L) Nothing.
A: Okay, so what is the difference?!?!???
Q: (TK) So, basically, we control 2nd density, and 4th
density controls us. There are the good guys and bad guys.
(L) And we will do what we will do. Either we choose to
align ourselves with the good guys, or with the bad guys.
A: It's up to you. ]
Q: I have read about this 'decision to intercede' by higher
levels of consciousness who look down upon mankind and
feel sorry for our terrible suffering, and that somehow,
if something isn't done, the whole universe will be overcome
by this evil... so it has got to be 'stopped.' A number
of sources promote this idea, which then leads, generally,
to claims that this or another alien group is part of
the 'good guys' or bad guys, or whatever. Is any of this
idea accurate?
A: No.
Q: So, what is, IS, and we only suffer exactly as much
as we need to learn? Is that it?
A: There is more to it than that, but at this point, you
would be unable to comprehend.
Q: Icke says "this Luciferian consciousness is a large
aspect of Divine Consciousness which chose to work against
the Source. Is this true?
A: Not really. It is balancing where needed.
Q: He says: "Other volunteers, aspects of very highly
evolved consciousness, came into the universe and this
galaxy in an effort to restore harmony. They did not incarnate
in physical bodies on the earth, they arrived in spacecraft,
some of them miles in length, while others simply manifested
themselves here. These were extraterrestrials who came
to bring knowledge to this planet hundreds of thousands
of years ago." Is this true? Yes or no?
A: Neither.
The
point is: it is all about balance, and cycles and Timelessness.
To believe in "error" or something that needs
to be "fixed," even if that "fixing"
is to be managed by ignoring, is to further add to the creation
of that reality. Remember what the Cassiopaeans have
said about belief:
...Most all power necessary for altering reality and physicality
is contained within the belief center of the mind. This
is something you will understand more closely when you reach
4th density reality where physicality is no longer a prison,
but is instead, your home, for you to alter as you please.
In your current state, you have the misinterpretation of
believing that reality is finite and therein lies your difficulty
with finite physical existence. We are surprised that you
are still not able to completely grasp this concept.
The
crucial point to understand here is this: if you BELIEVE
that something is "broken," that something needs
to be "fixed," that is exactly the reality you
will experience. If you spend your days and nights saying
prayers and mantras, sending love and light here and there,
or visualizing "change" or something different
than what IS at the given moment, if you assign a day to
"pray for peace" or "heal the Earth,"
or "converge harmonically," you are, IN EFFECT,
acting from the belief that there is something wrong,
broken, needing change, needing peace, needing healing,
or needing harmony. You are proclaiming, in a clear and
present way, that what IS is not acceptable.
Now,
let's deal with that. Obviously, there is a LOT of stuff
that goes on here on the Big Blue Marble that we don't LIKE!
There is death and decay and darkness. There is poverty
and want and suffering. There is war and pestilence and
disaster after disaster. What kind of a crazy person would
want things to continue that way?
Not
me.
But
I know something from experience that gives me a different
perspective. I know that the Universe is a "self-regulating
mechanism" of which I, as a third density human being,
am only a tiny, insignificant part. I also know that when
I keep my judgments OUT of it, (remembering that "judgment"
conveys the idea of taking some action), the Universe knows
better what is needed at any given point in space/time than
my limited, feeble human brain could ever conceive. Further,
I know that when I get myself out of the way, when I sit
back and observe what IS with appreciation, with awe and
wonder; with curiosity as to what clever and wonderul thing
"God" is going to do next in this marvelous, endlessly
changing reality in which we have our existence, I am NEVER
disappointed.
Nevertheless,
at this point, I would like to comment on the idea that
"in the beginning," MIND did not exist. This is
quite contrary to what the Cassiopaeans say which is, in
fact, that the ONLY thing that is "real" is MIND.
02-25-95
Q: (GB) Could you explain the process of the soul?
A: Soul is consciousness, period.
10-18-94
Q: (L) Are you part of the collective subconscious,
unconscious, or consciousness? Are you part of our higher
consciousness?
A: So is everything else.
11-16-94
A: There is no time as you know it; its all just lessons
for the collective consciousness.
Q: (L) So at the closing of this grand cycle everything
will just start all over again?
A: Not exactly; you see, there is no start.
11-13-99
Q:
Next question; a reader writes: "In [certain teachings],
man is viewed as a composite entity comprised of one
being, supposed hopefully to be "in charge," and an
enormous number of separate entities in various states
of consciousness/unconsciousness, not completely dissimilar
to the description given in Ouspensky's In Search
of the Miraculous. One of the critical differences
between what the Cassiopaeans are saying and what is
given as fact in [those teachings] is that, in [the
referenced teachings], one is taught that one is not
ultimately One, that an individual remains an individual
to the upper reaches of evolution, and evolves as a
"god." [I cannot vouch for this being the actual teachings
of the mentioned source, I am only reading the question
as the reader wrote it.]
A: The Grand Pulsation makes individuality a temporary
state of being.
Q: By saying that the Grand Pulsation is only a temporary
state of individuation, this means that all are One
and return to the state of Oneness.
A: Yes. If so, it is always true. All are ultimately
"god."
Q: But they don't evolve as a god by remaining individual
in the upper reaches of evolution?
A: What would be the purpose?
Q: I guess they are hung up on remaining individuals
and becoming as "gods" for purposes of power and control
issues... sort of ulitmate STS.
A: Maybe that would work if time and linear reality
were correct, but...
05-27-95
Q: (L) What is the link between consciousness and matter?
A: Illusion.
Q: (L) What is the nature of the illusion? (T) That
there isn't any connection between consciousness and
matter. It is only an illusion that there is. It is
part of the third density...
A: No. Illusion is that there is no link between consciousness
and matter.
Q: (L) I got it! The relationship is that consciousness
is matter.
A: Close. What about vice versa?
06-07-97
Q:
Alright. There are a lot of people teaching that there
are divisions of ethereal being such as spirit, soul,
consciousness, etc. What is the difference between the
spirit and the soul?
A: Semantics.
But,
curiously, going back to the former statement that consciousness
is matter and matter is consciousness, the Cassiopaeans
HAVE defined four "bodies," so to speak:
10-10-98
A: And remember, your consciousness operates on four levels,
not just one!
Q: And what are these four levels?
A: Physical body, consciousness, genetic body and spirit-etheric
body.
Q: Are those the four composites of the human manifestation
in 3rd density?
A: 3rd and 4th. One leads oneself, through physical
actions, as well as psychic ones, to develop these "problems"
when one is preparing to "bump it up" a notch.
10-23-99
Q: (A) The question is: is this theory that I have been
developing with Blanchard for the past ten years or even
more, is it a step forward; can it be made a step forward
by completing it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, if it can be a step forward, the main question
that we don't know the answer to is: what is classical?
Gravity or consciousness or something else? What? Or,
perhaps everything is classical...
A: Classical [physics] negates consciousness, regarding
the mind as merely a function of chemical functions and
electrical impulses occurring within a vacuum, rather
than being interfaced with the rest of creation at
all levels of density and all dimensions, which is
of course, the case.
A:
And remember, your consciousness operates on four levels,
not just one!
Q: And what are these four levels?
A: Physical body, consciousness, genetic body and spirit-etheric
body.
Q: Are those the four composites of the human manifestation
in 3rd density?
A: 3rd and 4th. One leads oneself, through physical
actions, as well as psychic ones, to develop these "problems"
when one is preparing to "bump it up" a notch.
10-23-99
Q: (A) The question is: is this theory that I have been
developing with Blanchard for the past ten years or even
more, is it a step forward; can it be made a step forward
by completing it?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay, if it can be a step forward, the main question
that we don't know the answer to is: what is classical?
Gravity or consciousness or something else? What? Or,
perhaps everything is classical...
A: Classical [physics] negates consciousness, regarding
the mind as merely a function of chemical functions and
electrical impulses occurring within a vacuum, rather
than being interfaced with the rest of creation at
all levels of density and all dimensions, which is
of course, the case.
|
|
|
"The
universe viewed as a self-excited circuit. Starting
small (thin U at upper right), it grows (loop of
U) to observer participancy - which in turn imparts
'tangible reality' (cf. the delayed-choice experiment
of Fig. 22.9) to even the earliest days of the universe"
|
|
"If
the views that we are exploring here are correct,
one principle, observer-participancy, suffices to
build everything. The picture of the participatory
universe will flounder, and have to be rejected,
if it cannot account for the building of the law;
and space-time as part of the law; and out of law
substance. It has no other than a higgledy-piggledy
way to build law: out of statistics of billions
upon billions of observer participancy each of which
by itself partakes of utter randomness."
(J.A.
Wheeler, "Beyond the Black Hole", in "Some
Strangeness in the Proportion", Ed. Harry Woolf,
Addison-Wesley, London 1980)
|
Gravity is the "glue which binds all aspects of reality,
physical and ethereal. Nothing would existwithout consciousness
to perceive it. Classical physics assumes, among other
things, that consciousness and "the brain" are one and
the same, or that one exclusively facilitates the other.
In actuality, the brain is merely that conduit which facilitates
conscious expression in the physical state of human 3rd
density states and similar manifestations.
12-09-95
Q: (L) Carlos Castaneda talks about the "Eagle's emanations,"
the Eagle being, I suppose, Prime Creator that emanates
down through all the densities, and that the Nagual who
can "see," sees the Eagle as a large black and white object.
Are they seeing the source, or are they seeing something
on just another density?
A: Source? There is no such thing. You are Prime Creator.
Q: (L) But that is so esoteric... I am talking about...
A: The point is: stop filling your consciousness with
monotheistic philosophies planted long ago to imprison
your being. Can't you see it by now, after all you have
learned, that there is no source, there is no leader,
there is no basis, there is no overseer, etc... You literally
possess, within your consciousness profile, all the power
that exists within all of creation!?! You absolutely have
all that exists, ever has, or ever will, contained within
your mind. All you have to do is learn how to use it,
and at that moment, you will literally, literally, be
all that is, was, and ever will be!!!!!!!!
Q: (L) That is all fine and dandy and sounds wonderful,
except for one little item. You also say that the monotheistic
concepts were IMPOSED on us to prevent us from knowing
this. So, if we are all that is, how can something
exist that can impose something so unpleasant on us?
A: Choices follow desire based imbalances.
Q: (L) If that is the case, why can't any one just turn
off the lights, end the illusion, and everything becomes
nothing?
A: Well, first of all, everything does not become nothing.
Secondly, some have already become everything.
12-19-98
Q: If, at 4th density, there is variability of physicality,
and the Lizzies, as you have previously said, are engineering
new bodies for themselves to occupy in some sort of mass
transition at the time of this realm border crossing;
in this state of variability of physicality, why do they
need to engineer new bodies for themselves? Why, in point
of fact, are Lizzies, Lizzies? Why do they look like Lizards?
A: They do not.
Q: Well, why do we call them Lizard Beings? I mean, YOU
named them that?
A: We label in accordance with your familiarity. If we
had called them "Drachomonoids," what would be your point
of reference??
Q: What do they REALLY look like? You said they resemble
upright alligators with humanoid features, six to eight
feet tall...
A: Yes.
Q: So, why do they look like that?
A: Biology.
Q: Does biology exist at 4th density?
A: Yes.
Q: Yet, its a variable physical density, right?
A: Yes, but what is your assumption here?
Q: I don't know what my assumption is. I guess that I
am assuming that if it is a varible state, they could
have a different biology very easily. Isn't that the case?
A: No.
Q: Can they appear as something else? Change their physicality?
A: Temporarily.
Q: When you say 'temporary,' what exactly do you mean?
Temporal relates to time.
A: We have explained before that the biggest single factor
regarding densities is the awareness level.
Q: Okay, how does that relate to them only being able
to temporarily change their appearance. Is this because
they can control OUR awareness?
A: Closer. Are you not yet aware that absolutely everything,
we repeat: everything is an illusion?!?
Q: (A) They say here that everything is an illusion, and
on the other hand they say there is consciousness and
matter. Everything is an illusion? Even this?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) God is also an illusion?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Illusion to whom?
A: To those not on level 7. Your learning naturally
dictates your experiences. Once you no longer require
something, you naturally move beyond it. However, you
retain it as a function of understanding.
Q: (A) And I am also an illusion! And understanding is
also an illusion! (L) Back to my question: who created
Lizzies AS LIZZIES? (A) Our illusion...
A: Everything is real, therefore, illusion is reality.
Q: (L) If everything is an illusion, from what does this
illusion spring, and into what space does it spring?
A: Your consciousness.
Q: (L) Where did this consciousness originate?
A: Consciousness is the absolute, the center point.
Q: (L) Where is it centered?
A: Within the Access. The prompt that begets energy.
Q: (L) Of what is this energy made?
A: The consciousness.
Q: (L) Was there ever a time when this consciousness did
not exist?
A: No, but there never was a time.
Q: (L) What prompted this consciousness to dream up all
these illusions?
A: Need for balance. Energy cannot exist within a vacuum,
therefore it must pulse. Hence you have waves.
Q: (L) What was the impetus for the need for balance?
A: Not a need, per se, just a natural function.
Q: (L) Well, when you have a pulse, you have a wave, and
if you have a wave, that implies time.
A: Therein lies the crux of your 3rd density illusion.
Why assume that any given aspect of the pulse is not occurring
simultaneously with any other. And if any are, all are.
Until you once and for all break free from the illusion
of time, you will not advance.
Q: (L) Well, back to my question...
A: No, your question cannot be answered unless you stop
assuming the range of acceptable answers.
See
how easy it is to get "off the track" and switch
from the subject of "accuracy" to "consciousness?"
But, I think that I will just "go with the flow"
here, and make some final remarks. It is good to read and
study many things. As our esteemed compatriot, Lord Bucket
says:
So
read the Bible. Read the Koran.
Read the Three Little Pigs. Read
EVERYTHING! You'll be certain to read a lot of silly things,
but you'll also stand a chance of seeing bits and pieces
of TRUTH.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in
our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research
and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your
own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
The owners and publishers
of these pages wish to state that the material presented here that is the product
of our research and experimentation in Superluminal Communication is offered
with the caveat that the reader ought always to research on their own. We invite
the reader to share in our seeking of Truth by reading with an Open, but skeptical
mind. We do not encourage "devotee-ism"
nor "True Belief." We DO encourage the seeking of Knowledge and Awareness in
all fields of endeavor as the best way to be able to discern lies from truth.
We constantly seek to validate and/or refine what we understand to be either
possible or probable or both. We do this in the sincere hope that all of mankind
will benefit, if not now, then at some point in one of our probable futures.
Contact Webmaster at cassiopaea.com
Cassiopaean materials Copyright © 1994-2004 Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
All rights reserved. "Cassiopaea, Cassiopaean, Cassiopaeans," is a
registered trademark of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk.
Letters addressed to Cassiopaea, Quantum Future School, Ark or Laura, become
the property of Arkadiusz Jadczyk and Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Republication
and re-dissemination of our copyrighted material in any manner is expressly
prohibited without prior written consent.
You are visitor number 20633 since October 24, 2002.
|
